In support of my new
DPA Section 10 Notice the following extracts from the PIRC’s letter to me dated
8 February 2017 have relevance:

‘All
of these points have been identified by Superintendent Laing as extracts from
the letter dated 21st April 2016 to you from the SPA’s Stuart Milne in which he
responds to a complaint made previously by you to the SPA.’

‘Point
1’

‘
“You initially contacted Strathclyde Police in 1993 to report allegations of
fraudulent accountancy practices by employees within Scottish Enterprise. These
allegations were investigated at the time and a report was sent to the
Procurator Fiscal who determined that no proceedings would be taken, you then
repeated your allegations of fraud and made criminal allegations against the
police officer who investigated the matter. These allegations were also
considered by the Procurator Fiscal and the Area Procurator Fiscal on more than
one occasion resulting in no proceedings being taken in relation to the alleged
fraud or the actions of any police officer.” ‘

;The original source
of this extract is correctly identified as being the letter dated 21st April
2016 from the SPA’s Stuart Milne to you.’

‘Point
2’

‘
“As a result of your continued attempts to take legal action against
Strathclyde Police you were declared a “vexatious litigant” under the terms of
the Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act 1898”.’

‘The original source
of this extract is correctly identified as being the letter dated 21st April
2016 from the SPA’s Stuart Milne to you.’

‘Point
3’

‘
“Between 2001 to 2009 you had written some 82 letters to Strathclyde Police in
which you made both criminal and non-criminal complaints about police”.’

‘The original source
of this extract is correctly identified as being the letter dated 21st April
2016 from the SPA’s Stuart Milne to you.’

‘Point
4’

‘
“The fact that the PCCS made a single recommendation that Strathclyde Police no
longer consider or respond to any complaint raised by you that is directly
related to your complaint “that Strathclyde Police did not conduct an
independent investigation into allegations of fraud”, it was wholly appropriate
that ACC Nicolson did not contact you”.’

‘Point
5’

‘
“While you remain personally dissatisfied with the manner in which your letter
was handled, it is not possible to infer misconduct allegations on the part of
ACC Nicolson who was following the recommendations of the PCCS”.’

‘Point
6’

‘
“The reason why ACC Nicolson did not respond was because Strathclyde Police had
received the PCCS recommendation that they need not respond to you”.’

‘I
intend to deal with points 4, 5, and 6 together as they are all direct quotes
from correspondence sent to you by the SPA.’

‘The original source
of these extracts is correctly identified as being the letter dated 21st April
2016 from the SPA’s Stuart Milne to you.’

‘In relation to
points 4, 5 and 6 – these are extracts from the letter sent to you by the SPA
in response to your complaint to the SPA.’

The last sentence
ends the extracts from the PIRC letter.

You were fully aware of the
contents of that letter when in your letter to me dated 11 April 2017 you
contradicted every quoted statement in it since you had already requested a
copy which I promptly provided for you.

Similarly, in a letter to me
dated 18 January 2017, written in response to a DPA Section 10 Notice to Police
Scotland, Temporary Superintendent John Laing, the Professional Standards
Department, stated the following in respect of the same points, reproduced here
in italics for convenience:

To
conclude, the Police Service of Scotland do not hold the information referred
to in Points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 and are not able to determine if it is accurate
or not.

All these extracts
further confirm the following statements about me in your letter dated 11 April
2017, reproduced here in italics for convenience, to be inaccurate:

As per
ourprevious response, we are unable to amend or
alter any of the information you are stating as inaccurate, as we are not the
originators of the information in dispute. Should you wish to challenge this
information, this would have to be directed to Police Scotland to investigate.

In any event do you have a reference to an authority that
you are relying upon to apply this restriction on the SPA’s ability to ensure
that information held and processed is accurate? It is certainly incompatible
with the SPA’s published procedures as detailed further on below in the FORMAL
COMPLAINT section.

As for your assertion about Police Scotland
being correct to apply to Police Scotland the recommendation from the PCCS to
Strathclyde Police, you are already aware of the basis for that recommendation
recently having been admitted by the PIRC to be inaccurate.

Knowingly communicating inaccuracies about
me, for example as reproduced below in italics for convenience, is unlawful,
damaging and fundamentally dishonest:

Police Scotland are correct in viewing the PCCSrecommendation to Strathclyde Police as now
vesting in Police Scotland.

How can Police
Scotland be correct to rely upon what has effectively been admitted to be a
defective recommendation? Your persistence in citing this recommendation
knowing that it has been fabricated and that the SPA is currently being
investigated for alleged misleading, irregular, improper and unfair conduct, including
corrupt practice in respect of this matter, is deceptive, dishonest and disgraceful.

Strathclyde Police already wrote to me in
2010 specifically stating that they had not claimed that I had written some 82
letters of complaint to the police. In that letter Strathclyde Police directed
me to take the matter up with the PCCS.

Having done so and
having obtained the admission from the PIRC that there were in fact not 82
letters of complaint, I am very concerned indeed that the SPA is persisting in falsely
pretending that the recommendation has any validity at all.

Does the SPA really
regard such blatant deception and dishonesty as acceptable?

DEFAMATION

Knowingly holding and processing inaccurate and harmful
information about me is not only unlawful under the terms of the Data
Protection Act 1998. It may also be grounds for a defamation action.

Twice in recent years I have been granted authority by
the Court of Session to raise actions despite a vexatious actions order against
me, (which in any case had been procured by the Lord Advocate’s corrupt conduct
in misleading the police and interfering with live civil actions, providing
grounds for a formal complaint against the Lord Advocate, as confirmed to be
the case by the Faculty of Advocate’s Ms Valerie Stacey QC, now Lady Stacey, a
judge at the Court of Session, and the Legal Services Ombudsman for England and
Wales, as already notified to you in my complaint against ACC Nicolson.)

You
ought to retract the damaging falsehoods about me which the evidence available
to you proves to be false.

Any
defence of qualified privilege that you may present in defence of a defamation
action would easily be countered because of the malice I could prove you to
have acted upon by knowingly asserting damaging falsehoods about me.

FORMAL
COMPLAINT

Separately, you have completely ignored the following
important information that I sent to you on 15 March 2017, reproduced here in
italics for convenience:

To:
SPA Information Management
Subject: Re: DPA Section 10 Notice

Dear
Sir or Madam,

Further
to my recent email, I want to point out that my DPA Section 10 Notice to
the SPA dated 26 August 2016 has never been properly addressed. The SPA's angle
that the inaccuracies could not be amended because they did not originate
in the SPA was both false in several respects and in any event not a valid
argument since the inaccuracies were communicated to me by the SPA in response
to my complaint against ACC Nicolson. The SPA's published complaints
handling procedures include the SPA's responsibility to establish the facts
with reference to the available evidence.

I submitted
many proofs to the SPA all of which were disregarded in direct breach of SPA
formal complaints handling procedures.

Important
additional evidence disclosed to me by Scottish Enterprise in July 2016
and submitted to the SPA on 26 August 2016 in support of my Section 10 Notice
was also disregarded.

The published Scottish Police Authority Complaints Handling
Procedures includes the following important points, reproduced here in italics
for convenience:

Gathering supporting evidence and
information relating to the complaint(s) is crucial to establishing the facts
upon which a decision will be based.

Evidence is the information on which to
base proof or to establish a truth or falsehood. Evidence gathering relates to
the identification, capture and recording of data relevant to the complaint
being investigated.

This further
indicates that the statements in your letter to me dated 11 April 2017 about
the SPA supposedly being unable to amend or alter any of the information I had stated
to be inaccurate, as you are not the originators of the information in dispute,
were themselves inaccurate, not being in accordance with the SPA Complaints
Handling Procedures.

Clearly, during the
handling of my complaint against ACC Nicolson the SPA ought to have already checked
the alleged inaccuracies against the evidence that I had provided in support of
my complaint in order to establish truth or falsehood in each case.

The SPA’s
performance in handling my complaint against ACC Nicolson has already been formally
assessed by the PIRC as not having been dealt with to a reasonable standard since
insufficient enquiry had been carried out and the SPA’s response had not been
adequately reasoned.

If you continue to
fail to address this breach of your formal procedures in a reasonable time I
will submit a formal complaint to the PIRC.

Since this is a
matter of very serious concern to the general public I have published this
letter, and my last letter, on the internet.

About Me

SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE
This story highlights the dangers involved in being a whistleblower. It relates how trying to resist instructions to falsify accounts in any establishment organisation, in this case Scottish Enterprise, can swiftly lead to unemployment, destruction of your professional reputation, homelessness and bankruptcy. In the longer term it can result in grinding poverty, social isolation, mental health problems, being falsely classified by the government as a persistent correspondent and a vexatious litigant. In my case I attained the dubious honour of being listed on the Court of Session website as the number one vexatious litigant in Scotland for 11 years so far (as at September 2016).
In reality however none of my cases was vexatious.